Talk:House of Oldenburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


RE: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

If and when one of his descendents ever did ascended the British throne, will they be the House of Windsor or the House of Mountbatten-Windsor?

As clarified in all three of the articles you link to, it will still be the House of Windsor. Mountbatten-Windsor is only a personal surname. -- Jao 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldenburg or Oldenburg[edit]

Does "Oldenburg" in this article refer to Oldenburg in Oldenburg (state) or to Oldenburg, Schleswig-Holstein? -- Petri Krohn 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter. Charles 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that 'House of Oldenburg' refers to the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg, in Niedersachsen (old Oldenburg state), which is where the Oldenburg Dynasty originated. They didn't inherit Oldenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, until 1460, at the death of a maternal uncle. Also, to the best of my knowledge, I think that the present House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluscksburg (from which descend the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein, and kings of Denmark, Greece, and Norway, and princes of Great Britain) is the senior line of Oldenburg (more senior lineages having become extinct). The House of Holstein-Gottorp (from which descend the Czars of Russia and present titular Grand Dukes of Oldenburg), is a junior line of the Oldenburg Dynasty. (Windemere, Dec. 29, 2010).

Yes, this article refers to Oldenburg in Oldenburg (state), exactly former state (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

to Oldenburg.

Counts / dukes of Schleswig and Holstein.[edit]

The current table is wrong. Both the kings of Denmark and the dukes of Holstein-Gottorp used the titles of Duke of Schleswig and Holstein at the same time. The current table makes it look like the kings of Denmark relinquished the title, which was not the case. This can be seen from the titles used in Danish laws and in the coats of arms of the Danish monarchs. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the coats of arms argument doesn't prove much, there can not be any doubt that the Danish monarchs (until the death of Frederick IX, it seems) even formally claimed the title. However, the table shows titles under which members of the house have reigned in various states, not merely titles which they have claimed. Whatever position Frederick IX held in (parts of) Schleswig-Holstein, he did it in the capacity of King of Denmark, not in the capacity of Duke of Schleswig and Holstein. South of the Danish border, he had no more jurisdiction than Juan Carlos I has in Jerusalem (he formally claims to be the King of Jerusalem) or than I would have in Denmark if I signed this posting with "Jao, King of Denmark". -- Jao 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more in line of the coats of arms scattered around the Royal parts of the two provinces, e.g. the Danish arms on the North Gate of Flensburg. I am also very much aware that the last person that took those titles even remotely serious was King Christian X, but by excluding the Oldenburgers from the list between 1580 and 1721/1773 - although they controlled roughly 1/4 of the two provinces and were co-rulers (with the Gottorp dynasty) in an additional 1/2 - 1/3 of the entire region makes it look like they had been expelled from the provinces which was clealy not the case. I have no problems with listing them as "co-rulers" of Schleswig until 1721 and the same for Holstein Holstein until 1773. But given the importance the Gottorpers and the region played in Danish foreign policy during the 18th century, the current list doesn't seem accurate. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

House of Mountbatten-Windsor[edit]

An Order-in-Council issued in 1960, which is the legally controlling document concerning the name of the British dynasty and its members' surnames. It says, in relevant part, "...Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." (London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.)

So only Elizabeth II and her children (no other descendants) are declared to continue bearing the name and continuing the House of Windsor by decree (her Wales grandsons or York granddaughters or their issue, coming to the throne, may also continue that name, but they are not required by any royal declaration to do so. It would be their choice). If her cadet descendants in the male-line, i.e. Viscount Severn's issue, should ever accede to the throne they do so under the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor" unless (descended from a British monarch reigning after Elizabeth II, or) the 1960 decree is changed -- which has not occurred. The Mountbatten-Windsors descend in legitimate male-line from the House of Oldenburg via the royal house of Greece patrilineally and via the royal house of Windsor matrilineally, and as such they constitute a branch of the House of Oldenburg, which has held and does hold numerous royal thrones. That and nothing more has been written into this article because it is accurate, objections notwithstanding. Lethiere (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In reply to another objection on my talk page, I add the following to the statement above: The Queen's words were quite precise, I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor... She herself correlates her immediate family's surname and the name of the dynasty, declaring that they are co-extensive in her descendants -- for one generation only, that of her children. After that, the Order-in-Council is exhausted, except for continuation in her cadet descendants (which includes, e.g., Severn) of the name "Mountbatten-Windsor". If you can find any law or decree which documents a difference between any British monarch's family name and that of his/her dynasty, please provide it: George V in 1917 and Elizabeth II in 1960 quite explicitly acknowledge that not only their dynasty, but their own name is "Windsor". Unless you wish to try to argue that Windsor was one of their Christian names, it is their family name/surname. According to British history and tradition, when monarchs ascend the throne or reign with surnames (e.g., Tudor, Stuart, Windsor), those surnames become the name of the dynasty. There is no reason to believe that future Mountbatten-Windsors would break with this tradition, but I am interested to see any evidence there might be which suggests otherwise. Therefore, nothing stated in the article is inaccurate and is subject to deletion on grounds of error or original research. Please do not initiate an edit war against correct article information. Lethiere (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Countries: Great Britain?[edit]

Charles, Prince of Wales is a member patrilineally of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. His father, the prince consort Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is a member through his Greek ancestors. Should Great Britain be mentioned in the article as a country with ties to the House of Oldenburg with a footnote about Prince Philip's ancestry or should it be put off until a member of the House of Glücksburg (Prince Charles, William, or Harry) ascends to the throne and the head of state (not her husband) is a member?----Rotellam1 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The latter! Seven Letters 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Except (1) it's not called Great Britain and (2) in British terms (the Letters Patent of 1960) the Queen's heirs are of the House of Windsor. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine, United Kingdom, but regardless of whatever the house is called in the United Kingdom, Philip's children and legitimate male-line descendants are also members of the House of Oldenburg. This branch of Windsor, therefore, is a junior line of the House of Oldenburg in addition to being sovereign in the United Kingdom. The same principle is illustrated in Luxembourg where, although they are heirs of Nassau and bear that name, they are also junior Capetians (Bourbons, of Parma) which is reflected in the arms they bear. Seven Letters 21:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's often argued to be the case. But there's no definitive answer: it depends on the social/historical context. But in the UK there's something approaching (but not quite) a de jure position that it's House of Windsor only. This is at odds with the (European) traditionalist genealogist tradition. It's a mistake to regard patrilineal houses as an immutable universal "truth". In the UK there's a long tradition of aristocratic descent and assumption of family names through the female line. Even in the (continental) European tradition there are exceptions eg the Romanovs. But if one looks more broadly, societies such as Republican Rome and some Celtic societies defined the equivalent of the "house" entirely differently where by adult adoption individuals frequently left one aristocratic family and joined another. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Romanovs, they always, always, always maintained their rights to the titles of the house of Holstein-Gottorp (a branch of the house of Oldenburg) to which they belonged. I agree that some people see it as "only Windsor" but that hasn't been definitively stated from the people at Buckingham Palace. Of course, they're only concerned with what is under their direct jurisdiction (any why shouldn't they be?). The definition of a house though, particularly a German one, is from the top down. Seven Letters 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That just applying Germanic (salic) interpretation of house to be only male-line descendants. To which House a person belongs to is much less clear cut as people, who want to use the salic law model of a house (what DeCausa call the immutable universal "truth"), may want it to be. The Nassau's of Luxembourg, the Braganza of Portugal in the 19th century, the Windsors, the Habsburgs of Austria, and the Russian Romanovs are all exceptions to that rule. Princess Victoria of Sweden's descendants are not going to be the House of Westling. According to wikipedia and some people the children of Prince Philip would be part of the House of Oldenburg but on law and paper they will remain the House of Windsor. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't simply applying German interpretations to Windsor, I was applying those to Oldenburg. The Nassaus continued because the entire male line died out but they still use Bourbon-Parma titles and arms. It was the Nassau Family Pact which originally entailed territory. The Braganzas in Portugal were still Saxon dukes, the Habsburgs were still Lorraines (Habsburg-Lorraine and, Marie Antoinette gave her name as "Marie Antoinette de Lorraine d'Autriche") and the Romanovs still used the titles "Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen and Oldenburg" and incorporated those arms into their greater arms. So they were all heads of their own houses at the same time they were junior members of others. Seven Letters 03:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the point that both myself and The Emperor's New Spy is making is that there is more than one definition/interpretation of this. The one you are fixing on is derived from a Germanic-centric interpretation (and I'm sure Salic law would have been something in the background the pushes it in that direction). Other cultures have differing perspectives. The UK one is somewhat mixed, I believe. A "House" is ultimately a social construct. Who is in and who is out isn't set in stone like the laws of physics (?!). Some traditional genealogists, particularly ones influenced by German aristocratic genealogical interpretation, treat it that way. DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I clearly indicated that the House of Oldenburg, following Germanic rules, includes them as members. That doesn't mean that they are also not members of the House of Windsor (to which I am not applying Germanic rules). It's the same way that the Luxembourgs are members of the House of Nassau (by their laws, proclamations and as heirs) and the House of Bourbon (as Capetians in male-line descent from Hughes Capet). If you made a Venn diagram of those who fit the definition of the house of Windsor (those who fall under the proclamations) and the house of Oldenburg (those who are male-line descendants of the counts of Oldenburg) then Philip's male-line descendants would fall right in the middle. Seven Letters 15:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between saying "Philip's children and legitimate male-line descendants are also members of the House of Oldenburg" (as you did in your post) and "Philip's children and legitimate male-line descendants are, according to the House laws of the House of Oldenburg, also members of that House". I wouldn't have any disagreement with that if that is what the Oldenburg House laws say. DeCausa (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem begins when a reader realises that the House of Windsor is a branch of the House of Wettin and then concludes that Prince William, being a member of the House of Windsor, is naturally also a member of the House of Wettin - which he simply isn't. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Straw man. No one would ever conclude that he is a member of the House of Wettin. Someone who thinks of the House of Windsor as a branch of the House of Wettin is clearly thinking in terms of the traditionalist (European) genealogist's approach. In which case, it would be obvious to them (in their own terms) that he is a member of the House of Oldenburg. For others, it's just the House of Windsor, and Wettin doesn't figure in the picture. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That would mean that George VI and Edward VII belonged to different royal houses. Did they? I couldn't bring myself to say so. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you may have missed the point I was making. The answer to your question is that there is no single answer. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Arms in infobox[edit]

Can we perhaps use arms common to the entire house in the infobox rather than the arms of the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg? The grand ducal line was one of the most junior of the entire house. Seven Letters 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Head of House[edit]

Christophe is the head of the Oldenburg house according to every reliable genealogical source. Reinstating this again in caption under photo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)